My apologies, Jonas. The last time I looked at the Debian package page for ghostscript, which was only a few days ago, only Masayuki Hatta was listed as a package maintainer. I just looked at it a few minutes ago and I now see three names, including yours. Apparently, the web page http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/ghostscript was not updated until recently.
There may still be some work for ghostscript to do here. If the default resolution, whatever it might be, is invalid for the ibmpro driver, then it should either issue an error message and refuse to generate output at all, or else it should issue a warning and substitute a valid resolution. If a resolution which is explicitly specified is not valid, then it should just fail. That's my opinion. I'm still not sure why it won't take -r240x72. Maybe that's because it doesn't have logic to look for horizontally adjacent dots and zap some of them, I don't know. But in no case should it generate garbage output which is not valid for the printers it supports and then act like nothing is wrong. Still, for the moment I am content with the two resolutions that do work, -r60x72 and -r120x72. My chief concern right now is that foomatic-db, or whichever package is responsible for generating the PPD file, generates one which will not work. A configuration option for specifying the resolution would be nice too, like it does for Epson 9-pin series. But above all, generate something that works! Of course, in both cases that's probably a job for the upstream program developer(s), not the distribution package maintainer(s); but Debian tells us not to contact upstream developers directly but to go through the package maintainer(s). (Although, in the one case where I did contact the upstream developer, he was glad that I did and expressed frustration that the downstream package maintainers for specific distributions didn't pass on bug reports to him.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
